About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Friday, October 29, 2010

The scientific study of religion

I'm in Baltimore for a somewhat strange experience: participating in a meeting on the scientific study of religion. Strange because until a few decades ago this sort of meeting would have been hard to conceive, and there simply wouldn't have been enough to say to fill three days of multiple parallel sessions, attended by hundreds of conferees. What follows are just some random notes and observations from the sessions I actually attended, and are not necessarily representative of the entire meeting, given of course that I picked the topics that tickled my curiosity.

As it turns out, the very first talk I heard, by Richard Cimino of Religion Watch, was about the significance of web activism by atheists. Cimino argued that online atheism has probably changed few minds, but it has been important to provide the atheist community with a clear and recognizable (if heterogenous) voice. Interestingly, the author focused on P.Z. Myers' blog and a couple of similar "iconoclastic" outlets. Believe it or not, Cimino then zeroed in on Myers' infamous (in my opinion) criticism of this blog and CFI's Michael De Dora (for which I chastised Myers), as an example of the rift between "in your face" and "accommodationist" atheists. Cimino also pointed out that a lot of atheist sites do not show much evidence of collaboration, citing a tendency by the Brights, for instance, not to crosslink. For the author, atheists face a difficulty in building consensus and forming a community. On the other hand, online secular activism is mostly grassroots and vigorous. The question is raised as to the future legitimacy of national organizations like CFI, which could thrive or dwindle depending on how they will deal with decentralized activism. (The author actually sees the recent departure of Paul Kurtz from CFI as part of a new strategy by that organization to adjust to the new public presence of atheists - though of course we also have to remember that people like P.Z. see CFI as accommodationist, and in their view not in sync with the grassroots.)

Victoria Blyde of the University of Tampa looked at on-campus and off-campus discrimination against religious and non-religious. The author reports more instances of discrimination against non-religious than religious students off-campus, while the reverse happens on-campus. She interpreted this difference in the context of a general theory that predicts more discrimination against whatever group happens to be in a minority, regardless of what identifies the minority.

Stacey Gutkowski of Arizona State gave a talk about the influence of secularism on international affairs, in particular in terms of the "secular bias" of Western democracies in their international policies, as perceived by Middle Eastern countries and with particular regard to the war on terror. Western framing of many non-Western societies as excessively religious carries the message of the latter societies being less developed, inferior, irrational, etc. According to the author, the secularization of British society during the 1960s led to a significant underestimation of religious terrorism within Iraq, which in turn contributed to the eventual collapse of the state (pre-Saddam Hussein). Another example is the current tendency of seeing the Taliban as a cultural instead of Islamic issue, with analysts being at a loss therefore to explain Taliban's easy recruitment of fighters from outside Afghanistan.

Lois Lee of the University of Cambridge examined so-called postsecularism and the "postsecular turn." One of the major ideas is that nonreligion is not neutral, but normative, and includes an anti-religion stance. The main study was conducted in London, UK. The author found three major types of nonreligion (but unfortunately gave no details at all about it, not even mentioning what the three types are!). In terms of anti-religion, this is usually targeted at discrete aspects of religion, not at religion in general. Interestingly, however, the specifics varied, sometimes reaching logical opposites, with some people objecting to religion as an intellectual commitment, but being okay with it as a cultural practice, and others taking the exact opposite stand. As for the separation between private and public sphere, the author found a tendency (though this was a qualitative study) for atheists not to advertise themselves as such in conversations, because they thought this would be equivalent to implying that most people present - being religious - are not that bright, which in British society is a clear faux pas.

7 comments:

""As for the separation between private and public sphere, the author found a tendency (though this was a qualitative study) for atheists not to advertise themselves as such in conversations, because they thought this would be equivalent to implying that most people present - being religious - are not that bright, which in British society is a clear faux pas.""

Sorry, was that the assumption that most people or religious or that religious people aren't bright. (Or both).

But yes, it is usually correct. Until recently religion and politics (but more so religion) were considered inappropriate topics for a dinner discussion. And even if it came up a form of agnosticism was preferred.

Frankly, this is why I found the new atheists so refreshing, you could actually engage the issues in a direct and honest manner.

The author reports more instances of discrimination against non-religious than religious students off campus, while the reverse happens on campus. She interpreted this difference in the context of a general theory that predicts more discrimination against whatever group happens to be in a minority, regardless of what identifies the minority.

Is she saying that religious students are in the minority on college campuses? Is that true? I highly doubt it, unless you only count practicing Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc. as religious.

>"According to the author, the secularization of British society during the 1960s led to a significant underestimation of religious terrorism within Iraq, which in turn contributed to the eventual collapse of the state..."

Hmm... could be true, but it seems to be stacking a few too many vague social explanations on top of each other.

>"...the author found a tendency (though this was a qualitative study) for atheists not to advertise themselves as such in conversations, because they thought this would be equivalent to implying that most people present - being religious - are not that bright, which in British society is a clear faux pas."

I'm not sure why anyone would use the word "atheist" in conversation to describe themselves and their outlook anyway. It's not a full-blown philosophy, only a particular stance on a single boring proposition; one that's trivial to evaluate rationally once you have the skills.

Also, defining oneself as such is ceding important ground to the theists. It tacitly admits that "Does god exist?" is a question we should be spending a lot of time thinking about & defining ourselves with reference to.

And further, is atheism really something to be *that* proud of? It kinda feels like framing your high school diploma and putting it on the mantelpiece. I guess if a person really had to work at it, perhaps due to childhood indoctrination, I can understand the pride. Otherwise...

Is she saying that religious students are in the minority on college campuses? Is that true? I highly doubt it, unless you only count practicing Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc. as religious.

In my understanding, you are right. The author defined "religious students" as those students who actually attend religious services. While around 70% of the college students identify with a religion, most of them are only nominally religious.

Am glad that this discussion has begun but is the conclusion? Is there any future for the scientific stdy of religion, taking note of the the intricacies of the religious discuss? Can all religious phenomenon be verified empirically or is the appeal through the psychology of religion? Isiorhovoja U. Osbert